The tide, it appears, is turning against the Aam Aadmi Party. Snooty intellectuals have started using the words 'anarchy', 'vigilantism' and 'arrogance' to describe the public conduct of the party.
The middle class, at least the section of it speaking to television cameras, has started pining for the good old pre-AAP days when evil co-existed with the lesser evil in a happy compromise.
The media have started raising the 'governance' question – the all-consuming obsession of our times - and the 'chaos vs order' debate has started dominating prime time space. The writing on the wall is clear for the AAP: it is losing the support of the very forces who think they made the party big.
The intelligentsia is clearly unhappy with the AAP. But the good thing about the leaders of the Kejriwal-led outfit is they care two hoots about its opinion. They treat it with certain degree of disdain and brazenness, which one, as a closet anarchist, finds satisfying.
PTI
Now, let's begin with the big question in Delhi and let one play the Devil's advocate.
When a chief minister has no powers to suspend even a lower level police official, what business does he have being in that position? How can you expect him/her to ensure safety and security for citizens of Delhi? Remember everyone going hammer and tongs against previous chief minister Sheila Dikshit for the poor safety scenario in the national capital?
The AAP had made a big issue of it and its stand had found great support among the media talking heads of all denominations and the middle classes. Her statement - 'My own daughter feels unsafe in Delhi' - was received with sarcasm.
Her plea that the chief minister needs to have control over the police was treated as an excuse for inefficiency.
There's nothing unjustified or unreasonable in the AAP's demand the state government needs to exercise control over the local police.
There seems to be huge objection to the way they are going about it – 'anarchic' makes it look ominous enough. The wisdom goes thus: instead of staging a dharna and blocking traffic, they should have petitioned to the Government of India – maybe followed it up with a polite reminder two months later and yet another still two months later – to hand over the local police to the Delhi government. Since they are in government, and thus in a responsible position, they have to follow the procedure and be patient.
Isn't it this same lack of patience for rules and formalities we were applauding whole-heartedly a year ago? Again, if we expect people in power to follow rules and decorum, what's the big fuss about change all about? The question being asked should be whether the elected government of Delhi should have the powers to manage its affairs entirely. Unfortunately, the entire debate so far has been about the recklessness of the AAP, not its intent. It has not helped that they have not been docile enough.
Let's touch on the more fundamental aspect of the issue on hand.
One has to be utterly foolish to presume that drugs trafficking or flesh trade flourishes in a locality without the knowledge, or even connivance, of the local police. This applies to other crimes too. The locals, by didn't of their proximity to the den of crime, know more about the players involved. They, of course, are aware of the patronage extended by the local police to such activities.
Now, if they want crime stopped in their locality, who do they approach? The neighbourhood policeman is not an option. It is now clear that even the government they elected is not even an option. The laid out procedure in such cases is tardy and ineffectual. As experience shows, finally, nothing comes out of it. The net loser is the ordinary citizen. Doesn't this need to change? Isn't safety of men or women part of governance?
When people take action to clean up their surrounding on their own, it becomes vigilantism. They are indulging in unacceptable behaviour, not approved by rules. Why don't we make the rules to suit their interest?
The AAP, by making the demand for more power, is actually staying true to its commitment to the masses. If it sees a political opportunity in it, there's no point blaming it. No one approves entirely the way it is going about its job. However, it deserves to be understood better.
No comments:
Post a Comment